Sylvain,
This thread appears to be spiraling into ad hominem. It is clear that you
believe yourself the self-appointed spokesman for the entire web in these
matters, that you believe you can read my mind and announce my intentions,
and that you must have the last word no matter what. It is also clear that
you are not interested in considering any form of compromise to accommodate
our position.
It would be pointless to respond further, so, unless I observe a change in
position, I will maintain Samsung's objection to mandating same-orign
requirements in css3-fonts and/or woff for UAs that do not otherwise
implement same origin access controls.
Glenn
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote:
> My bad for taking a point you made earlier and extrapolating from that css3-fonts reference (“I would note, however, that as presently defined, HTML5 does require same-origin on web font resource access along with other resource types.” in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0668.html). But since HTML5 does **not** define any origin policy for fonts and you argue that is where it should be interoperably defined, how is that going to happen without raising the issue with the HTML WG ? As the spec is heading for Last Call it would seem important to raise the issue soon. (Although a formal objection would not indeed seem necessary if HTML5 does not require this, despite your original claim). ****
>
> ** **
>
> Given that your sole contribution to this mailing list and WG has been to
> show up to throw a sudden formal objection by making a series of incoherent
> and self-contradictory arguments – as if to see which one could stick,
> really - given that you are actively opposed to the consensus and goals of
> this WG, given that you haven’t even once bothered to show interest about
> the impact of your approach on the WG’s work, on other members, on the web,
> web authors or users, you have precious few grounds to expect the position
> you represent to be welcomed as a positive and meaningful contribution. In
> addition, given that you have persistently evaded or ignored others on those
> issues *they* care about, given that I have no concrete reason to believe
> as of yet that your goal is to contribute in a manner that is meaningful and
> positive for the work of the group, I have been as civil as I feel justified
> under the circumstances. Were you expecting a thank you note ?****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:26 AM
> *To:* Sylvain Galineau
> *Cc:* John Hudson; Levantovsky, Vladimir; liam@w3.org;
> StyleBeyondthePunchedCard; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org; www-font@w3.org;
> Martin J.
> *Subject:* Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to
> origin****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
> In any case, I assume you will file a formal objection with all three WGs
> concerned. As HTML5 currently depends on css3-fonts to define this behavior
> and you clearly believe that to be incorrect, you will also object and
> demand that they define this behavior as part of HTML5, right ?****
>
> ** **
>
> Again, you are wrong. HTML5 only refers to css3-fonts once, in the
> following:****
>
> ** **
>
> *For fonts*
>
> The origin <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#origin> of a
> downloadable Web font is equal to the origin<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#origin> of
> the absolute URL <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#absolute-url> used
> to obtain the font (after any redirects). [CSSFONTS]<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#refsCSSFONTS>
> ****
>
> This says nothing about using css3-fonts to define same origin behavior.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> You know Slyvain, I don't know you, but I have not impugned your knowledge
> or reasonableness in this thread. On the other hand, every contribution of
> yours to this thread has been expressed to one degree or another in an
> ironic and frankly, a contemptuous tone. You should try being civil for a
> change.****
>
> ** **
>
> G.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>